PrepTest 152, Section 1, Question 17
Xavier: The new fast-food place on 10th Street(62 more words not shown)
It can be inferred from(8 more words not shown)
- Afew people want(6 more words not shown)
- Bbanks should not(5 more words not shown)
- Cif the new(11 more words not shown)
- Da fast-food place(13 more words not shown)
- Ethe new fast-food(8 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Could the restaurant have succeeded as a takeout place? Lack of indoor seating doesn't strike me as an automatic explanation for failure. Good food or a convenient pickup option might still attract customers.
But Miranda doesn't make that objection. She agrees that lacking indoor seating on this crowded street made the business likely to fail, then adds that the bank should have seen the problem before lending. Xavier hasn't said anything about the bank's responsibility.
What we’re looking for
For their agreement, keep to the concern they share: this particular restaurant's lack of indoor seating made failure unsurprising. We don't need to agree with that assessment ourselves to identify it.
Working the answers
- A
Xavier says few people want to eat outside while breathing exhaust fumes. Dropping the fumes changes his claim. Someone might dislike that setting and enjoy eating outdoors in a pleasant place. Miranda also doesn't make a general claim against outdoor dining, so A overstates their agreement.
- B
Miranda criticizes this loan, but Xavier never addresses what banks should finance. In addition, a blanket rule about all restaurants without indoor seating goes beyond this restaurant on a street with many competitors. We can't give Xavier a lending policy just because he doubts this business's prospects.
- C
Removing one problem doesn't ensure success. Even with indoor seating, the restaurant might have poor food, high prices, or some other disadvantage. The speakers identify a reason failure was likely; they don't establish that fixing it would probably make the whole venture successful.
- D
Having outdoor seating isn't the same as lacking indoor seating. A restaurant could offer both. Neither speaker says an outdoor option itself makes failure likely. The concern is that customers at this restaurant have no indoor option.
- ECorrect
This is broader than my prediction about the seating, but it captures the shared judgment. Xavier wasn't surprised by the failure, and Miranda says the bank should have realized failure was likely. Both therefore regarded this particular restaurant as a risky venture, even though only Miranda goes on to blame the bank.
More Must Be True questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Must Be True questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.